DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the splice position information.”
With regards to claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the actuator”
The subject matter of claims 2-8 is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. Applicant is respectfully reminded that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the structural limitations recited therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (1961). A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, e.g. it doesn't begin a step with "receiving" or "detecting" or some other -ing ending word that provides the active step.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already set forth a pair of rollers and an open-loop and /or closed-loop control system. Therefore, it is unclear if this claim intends to introduce additional elements or if it is meant to refer to the previous set forth elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US Patent 3,635,627).
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Palmer discloses a method for calendering an electrode tape, the method comprising:
performing a calendering process, wherein during the calendering process an electrode tape (10) is passed through a roller gap of a pair of rollers (11,12) of a calendering device by compressing the electrode tape;
performing, in the calendering process, a defect detection step in which at least one defect (thickness difference) of the electrode tape is directly or indirectly detected [Column 3, lines 1-5];
determining, in the calendering process, if a defect (thickness difference) is detected during the defect detection step [Column 3, lines 1-10];
adjusting the pair of rollers (10, 11) before the defect reaches the roller gap, in an opening step from a calendering position of the pair of rollers to an open position of the pair of rollers [Column 3, lines 10-25]; and
performing the defect detection step and /or the opening step automatically or fully automatically via an open-loop and /or closed-loop control system of the calendering device [Column 3, lines 1-25].
With regards to claim 2, Palmer discloses wherein the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system has a data storage (considered to be inherent wherein the controller and electronics elements 24 generates signals/errors and comparisons)and wherein data storage position information about the position of the defect of the electrode tape, in relation to the electrode tape and/or a longitudinal direction of the electrode tape, is stored in the data storage, and wherein an open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit of the open-loop and/or closed-loop control system retrieves and /or receives the data storage position information at the defect detection step and / or for the detection of the defect, as a data storage signal [Column 3, lines 1-60].
With regards to claim 3, Palmer discloses wherein the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system has a sensor (21), and wherein the position of the defect of the electrode tape, in relation to the electrode tape and / or a longitudinal direction of the electrode tape, is recognized, preferably detected, via the sensor, and wherein sensor position information about the position of the defect is transmitted in the defect detection step as a sensor signal from the sensor to the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit of the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system [Column 3, lines 1-25].
With regards to claim 5, Palmer discloses wherein the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system is an unwind splicer (21), and wherein the position of the defect of the electrode tape in relation to the electrode tape and / or a longitudinal direction of the electrode tape is recognized or detected by the unwind splicer, and wherein splice position information about the position of the defect in the defect detection step is transmitted as a splice signal from the unwind splicer to the open-loop and / or closed-loop control unit of the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system [Column 3, lines 1-25].
With regards to claim 6, Palmer discloses wherein the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system comprises the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit (24) and wherein the data storage position information is transmitted as a data storage signal and/or the sensor position information as a sensor signal to the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit, and wherein the signals are processed in the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit into control information, and wherein the control information is transmitted as an opening signal to an actuator (motor 27) of the open-loop and / or closed-loop control system, and wherein the actuator is controlled in the opening step by the opening signal such that the pair of rollers is adjusted from the calendering position to the open position by the actuator [at least Column 3, lines 1-25].
With regards to claim 7, Palmer discloses wherein the actuator (27) is controlled by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit (24) by the control signal such that the pair of rollers (11, 12) is adjusted to the open position before the at least one defect reaches the roller gap, and / or wherein the actuator is controlled by the open-loop and / or closed-loop control unit by the control signal such that the pair of rollers is adjusted to the open position, after a defect leading tape section of the electrode tape has reached the roller gap [at least Column 3, lines 1-25].
With regards to claim 7, Palmer discloses wherein a tape speed of the electrode tape is reduced by the open-loop and /or closed-loop control system from a calendering tape speed to a defect tape speed before the defect reaches the roller gap [via speed reducers].
With regards to claim 9, Palmer discloses wherein the method has a closing step, and wherein, during the closing step the open-loop and / or closed-loop control unit generates a closing signal and transmits it to an actuator (motor), and wherein the actuator is controlled in the closing step by the closing signal such that the pair of rollers is adjusted from the open to the calendering position by the actuator, wherein, the actuator is controlled by the open-loop and / or closed-loop control unit by the closing signal such that the pair of rollers is adjusted to the calendering position as soon as a defective trailing tape section of the electrode tape has left the roller gap and / or the actuator is controlled by the open-loop and / or closed-loop control unit by the closing signal such that the pair of rollers is adjusted from the open position to the calendering position after the at least one defect has left the roller gap [Column 6, lines 10-25, 55-70].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer.
Palmer discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the sensor is formed by a color sensor or a CCD sensor. It is considered to be well-known that sensors may be a color sensor, a CCD sensor, a beta gauge detector, Hall-effect sensors or light sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a color sensor or a CCD sensor since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for detecting, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US Patent 4,597,275.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
